Abstract
The U.S. Vulnerabilities Equities Process (VEP) is used by the government to decide whether to retain or disclose zero day vulnerabilities that the government possesses. There are costs and benefits to both actions: disclosing the vulnerability allows the vulnerability to be patched and systems to be made more secure, while retaining the vulnerability allows the government to conduct intelligence, offensive national security, and law enforcement activities. While redacted documents give some information about the organization of the VEP, very little is publicly known about the decision-making process itself, with most of the detail about the criteria used coming from a blog post by Michael Daniel, the former White House Cybersecurity Coordinator. Although the decision to disclose or retain a vulnerability is often considered a binary choice—to either disclose or retain—it should actually be seen as a decision about timing: to determine when to disclose. In this paper, we present a model that shows how the criteria could be combined to determine the optimal time for the government to disclose a vulnerability, with the aim of providing insight into how a more formal, repeatable decision-making process might be achieved. We look at how the recent case of the WannaCry malware, which made use of a leaked NSA zero day exploit, EternalBlue, can be interpreted using the model.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ablon, L., Bogart, T.: Zero Days, Thousands of Nights: The Life and Times of Zero-Day Vulnerabilities and Their Exploits. RAND Corporation publication, Santa Monica (2017)
Beres, Y., Griffin, J., Shiu, S.: Security analytics: Analysis of security policies for vulnerability management. Technical report HPL-2008-121, HP Labs (2008)
Budington, B., Crocker, A.: NSA’s failure to report shadow broker vulnerabilities underscores need for oversight, September 2016. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/09/nsas-failure-report-shadow-broker-vulnerabilities-underscores-need-oversight
Commercial and government information technology and industrial control product or system vulnerabilities equities policy and process. https://www.eff.org/files/2015/09/04/document_71_-_vep_ocr.pdf
Daniel, M.: Heartbleed: understanding when we disclose cyber vulnerabilities, April 2014. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2014/04/28/heartbleed-understanding-when-we-disclose-cyber-vulnerabilities
Dixon-Thayer, D.: Improving government disclosure of security vulnerabilities, September 2016. https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2016/09/19/improving-government-disclosure-of-security-vulnerabilities/
Fidler, M., Herr, T.: PATCH: debating codication of the VEP, May 2017. https://lawfareblog.com/patch-debating-codification-vep
Greenberg, A.: Shopping for zero-days: a price list for hackers’ secret software exploits, March 2012. https://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/03/23/shopping-for-zero-days-an-price-list-for-hackers-secret-software-exploits/
Healey, J.: The U.S. Government and Zero-Day Vulnerabilities: From Pre-Heartbleed to Shadow Brokers. J. Int. Aff. (2016). https://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/online-articles/healey_vulnerability_equities_process
Herr, T., Schneier, B., Morris, C., Stock, T.: Estimating vulnerability rediscovery, March 2017. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2928758
Menn, J., Walcott, J.: Exclusive: Probe of leaked U.S. NSA hacking tools examines operative’s ‘mistake’, September 2016. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-cyber-nsa-tools-idUSKCN11S2MF
Miller, C.: The legitimate vulnerability market: Inside the secretive world of 0-day exploit sales. In: Sixth Workshop on the Economics of Information Security (2007)
Nakashima, E., Timberg, C.: NSA officials worried about the day its potent hacking tool would get loose. Then it did, May 2017. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/nsa-officials-worried-about-the-day-its-potent-hacking-tool-would-get-loose-then-it-did/2017/05/16/50670b16-3978-11e7-a058-ddbb23c75d82_story.html
National Security Policy Directive 54. https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-54.pdf
ODNI Public Affairs Office. Statement on bloomberg news story that NSA knew about the “Heartbleed bug” aw and regularly used it to gather critical intelligence, April 2014. https://icontherecord.tumblr.com/post/82416436703/statement-on-bloomberg-news-story-that-nsa-knew
Ozment, A.: The likelihood of vulnerability rediscovery and the social utility of vulnerability hunting. In: Workshop on Economics and Information Security (2005)
Peterson., A.: Why everyone is left less secure when the NSA doesn’t help fix security flaws, October 2013. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/10/04/why-everyone-is-left-less-secure-when-the-nsa-doesnt-help-fix-security-flaws/
Riley, M.: NSA said to have used heartbleed bug, exposing consumers, April 2014. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-04-11/nsa-said-to-have-used-heartbleed-bug-exposing-consumers
Sanger, D.E.: Obama lets N.S.A. exploit some internet flaws, officials say, April 2014. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/13/us/politics/obama-lets-nsa-exploit-some-internet-flaws-officials-say.html?_r=1
Schneier, B.: Managed security monitoring: Closing the window of exposure (2000). http://www.keystoneisit.com/window.pdf
Schneier, B.: Simultaneous discovery of vulnerabilities, February 2016. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/02/simultaneous_di.html
Schneier, B.: The Vulnerabilities market and the future of security, June 2012. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/06/the_vulnerabili.html
Schneier, B.: WannaCry and Vulnerabilities. June 2017. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2017/06/wannacry_and_vu.html
Schwartz, A., Knake, R.: Government’s Role in Vulnerability Dis- closure, June 2016. http://www.belfercenter.org/publication/governments-role-vulnerability-disclosure-creating-permanent-and-accountable
Zerodium: How to sell your 0day exploit to ZERODIUM, March 2017. https://zerodium.com/program.html
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Caulfield, T., Ioannidis, C., Pym, D. (2017). The U.S. Vulnerabilities Equities Process: An Economic Perspective. In: Rass, S., An, B., Kiekintveld, C., Fang, F., Schauer, S. (eds) Decision and Game Theory for Security. GameSec 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10575. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68711-7_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68711-7_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-68710-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-68711-7
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)